A growing faction of House Democrats wants to bring back term limits for the crew of party leaders who sit atop the chamber’s most influential committees.

The effort follows a series of bruising fights among Democrats over seniority, a split that pits younger lawmakers who feel shut out from decision-making versus powerful voting blocs like the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. The latter groups have long favored seniority as the surest way for their members to rise in the ranks, while term-limit supporters lament that Republicans are outflanking Democrats in promoting young leaders to carry their message.

Story Continued Below

California Rep. Anna Eshoo, a close ally of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, said a growing number of lawmakers want the caucus to have a serious discussion about term limits.

“I think there should a very thorough and thoughtful examination, not only of this but several rules of the caucus,” said Eshoo, who unsuccessfully challenged more-senior Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey last year for the top Democratic spot on the Energy and Commerce Committee. “I think it would be healthy for the members, all of the members, to really understand what the rules are [and] the history behind them.”

Former Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson, who was term-limited from that slot in 2013, agreed. He praised House Republicans’ six-year limit for people to serve atop committees, although Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has allowed some exceptions.

“A number of people would say Republicans have struck a better formula for advancement,” the Connecticut Democrat said. “And I don’t think it’s a bad thing for leadership at all. I mean, it’s verboten to say it, but it’s true and I think even our current leaders would recognize it, all of whom I support.”

The issue hasn’t come up at the Democrats’ weekly caucus meeting yet, but supporters of the change said a growing consensus exists that term limits have helped Republicans promote new blood, giving the GOP an edge in messaging and elections. Multiple members lamented that Democrats are supposed to represent younger voters but have a slate of leaders across House committees who have been in Congress for decades.

A members-only meeting Wednesday among Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee turned “contentious” after Reps. Ron Kind of Wisconsin and Mike Thompson of California made pointed comments that the panel’s most senior members have led the panel for years, stymieing the advance of younger members, according to multiple sources familiar with the gathering.

Democrats further down the ranks also complained that senior members often don’t make their annual Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dues and fundraising goals, despite their lofty positions on so-called A committees.

While Ways and Means ranking member Sander Levin of Michigan exceeded his DCCC membership dues in the 2012 election cycle, Reps. Charles Rangel of New York and Jim McDermott of Washington were far below their goals, according to a DCCC dues sheet obtained by POLITICO.

Rangel did not contribute to the membership dues and raised just $56,000 for “front line” Democrats, who are in competitive races. McDermott contributed $150,000 in dues and a further $37,500 for front-liners. Rangel and McDermott were each supposed to contribute $250,000 in membership dues. The two members also raised additional funds for the DCCC but fell below their fundraising goals across the board.

Rangel’s office noted that he faced a tough primary and general election challenge in 2014. And in an interview, Rangel pushed back against the notion that his colleagues’ criticism was aimed at him.

“The only thing that came up as it relates to me is the millions of dollars that I have raised for the DCCC,” Rangel said. “The whole idea that I was included with the senior members, nothing was farther from the truth.”

A representative of McDermott’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

A Democratic lawmaker, who spoke to POLITICO on the condition of anonymity to describe the closed-door meeting frankly, described the debate as “spirited.”

“We have members who have been there forever, and some of the members who have been there forever don’t do anything,” the member said.

In an interview Friday, Kind praised the Democrats’ ranking members but said the party suffers from a serious “churn” problem.

“I think it’s important that newer members, especially, see a path for career advancement,” he said. “This isn’t about the current ranking members that we have now … but I see a deep talent within our caucus, and a lot of individuals [are] being stifled as far as career advancement, and that might be why some members are looking for the exit door.”

Kind said he recently raised the issue of term limits for ranking members with the Democratic leadership team but has yet to bring up the idea in caucus. He is the chairman of the New Democrat Coalition, a group of nearly 50 pro-business Democrats who have bickered with more liberal factions over the party’s direction and messaging.

These moderate members were among the first Democrats to raise concerns about the party’s election-year strategy after it lost nearly a dozen seats in the November midterm elections.

“I raised [the term-limit discussion] during the Ways and Means organization meeting, but there hasn’t yet been an extensive discussion in the wider caucus,” Kind said. “I wish there would be.”

Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi, said the idea of establishing term limits “has come up a number of times, but it’s up to the members of the caucus.” The California Democrat has not publicly weighed in on the debate.

In 2009, when House Democrats were in the majority, they voted to scrap six-year term limits on chairmen, a reform that Republicans had implemented.

Not everyone favors moving away from the seniority system.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver described the term-limit discussion as a “phantom issue.”

“The Dingell-esque era is over. Nobody is going to come in here and serve for 56 years, it’s just not going to happen,” the Missouri Democrat said in reference to former Rep. John Dingell, who retired in December after serving 59 years. Cleaver noted the rise of members like Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), a classmate of his, who has not only risen in the ranks but also chairs the Democratic National Committee.

“On the selfish side, not that I’m selfish, but CBC members and now CHC members as well are now moving to the upper rings of leadership, so for us to implement some kind of change doesn’t feel good, and it’s not the way the Democratic caucus has portrayed itself to the voters,” Cleaver said.

Seniority became a major contention point among Democrats in November, when Eshoo vied with Pallone for the top Democratic spot on the powerful energy committee. Pallone, who ultimately won, sat higher on the dais, but Pelosi’s support for Eshoo prompted a caucuswide debate on the future of seniority as a key factor in promoting lawmakers.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva, who unsuccessfully challenged Rep. Peter DeFazio in 2013 for the top Democratic slot on the Natural Resources Committee, said he doesn’t believe the caucus should implement term limits. Grijalva has since risen to be the ranking member on the panel.

The Arizona Democrat said he thinks turnover “could take care of a lot of leadership issues,” noting that three sophomore Democrats serve as subcommittee ranking members on his panel.

Further, Grijalva said he worked hard for 12 years to get to his position.

“I don’t think you force the people who have given the time to the committee to [leave],” he said.